Posted
by
timothyon Monday August 22, 2011 @11:42PM
from the let's-see-where-things-stand-in-a-year-or-3 dept.

angry tapir writes "Internet connectivity was restored in Tripoli late Sunday local time, as rebel forces took control of many parts of the capital city of Libya. A new mobile network set up by the rebels in the east of Libya in April, called Libyana Al Hurra, and a similar network in Misrata, will soon also be linked to the Libyana Mobile Phone network in Tripoli, said Ousama Abushagur, a Libyan telecommunications engineer in the U.A.E, who led the team that set up Libyana Al Hurra."

I know I shouldn't be so cynical but I have to ask who is the new dictator? It seems like every time I read about some rebel group over throwing some government things really never get better. It's just a new dictator in place of the old. Maybe I'm wrong and Lybian's will get a government that is fair and some what workable but I'm not going to put money on it.

"Although Syria is not a major oil exporter by Middle Eastern standards, oil is a major pillar of the economy. According to the International Monetary Fund, oil sales for 2010 were projected to generate $3.2 billion for the Syrian government and account for 25.1% of the state's revenue. Syria is the only significant crude oil producing country in the Eastern Mediterranean region, which includes Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Syria had 2.5 billion bar

In the beginning, Khadafi himself was a well-meaning rebel with real credibility. Same old story. The US really owes a great debt to George Washington, rarely do you find a powerful man who doesn't think he'd make a fine benevolent dictator.

And ever since Washington rarely have you found a president who knows its best not to stick your nose where it doesnt belong. Washington basically warned us about the current situation in the US over 200 years ago when he gave his farewell address. In it he basically warned against the formation of political parties and against the US getting involved in foreign wars...... basically warning us to stay away from the two things that are biting us in the ass right now.

Also, it was more of an independence movement that a real revolution. Those tend to go a lot better. Getting rid of the British didn't destroy all pre-exisitng political structures and disenfranchise all existing elites. Also they didn't have the tension of fighting hordes of their own people. They weren't eaten away from the paranoia that stems from that. Contrast this with the French Revolution.

Granted that the rebels already have embassies in a quite a few countries, and have consistently stated they are interested in democracy, I think there might just be a chance we'll see that. But again they rebels aren't one homogeneous group, civil war is certainly still a possibility.

Actually no. France, with NATO backing and U.S. participation will be in charge from here on out. The problem with Libya was that it had a stable, successful socialist economy - and was doing too much business with China. That's been fixed now, thanks to an insurgent force recruited, funded, trained, armed and directed by a NATO coalition, operating under active air cover and full spectrum propaganda provided by the aforementioned foreign powers.

Actually no. France, with NATO backing and U.S. participation will be in charge from here on out. The problem with Libya was that it had a stable, successful socialist economy - and was doing too much business with China. That's been fixed now, thanks to an insurgent force recruited, funded, trained, armed and directed by a NATO coalition, operating under active air cover and full spectrum propaganda provided by the aforementioned foreign powers.

It's worth noting that Germany and Japan both had democracies forcibly imposed on them and they worked. Iraq and Afghanistan seem to working along the same lines. Whether they ultimately stick around or transition to something else remains to be seen, but it's not a path with sure failure.

Nobody forced democracy onto the Germans. If anything, the Soviets took it away from us in 1949. Germany's democratic desires can be traced back to when Napoleon invaded the Rhineland. That was 200 years ago.

What does "democracy" even mean these days, though? Most countries I see described as "democratic" afford very little power (if any) to the voter. It's really just describing one method of preventing civil wars while allowing the real overlords (the rich, the powerful, the elite) to continue to govern behind the scenes.

False in each case. The label "established" indicates stability and some degree of permanence which didn't happen.

But using your meaning, it's worth noting that Iraq had an "established democracy" from 1961-1963 and 1963-1968. Afghanistan has similar brushes with democracy in its past too. That makes them both just as qualified as Japan and Germany.

Ditto. Now do you have a real argument to make? I did and I made it. Way back when it was claimed that Iraq and Afghanistan couldn't be democracies because the condition couldn't be forced on you. I gave Germany and Japan as counterexamples. Note that these contradict the original assertion!

Then possibly the same AC modifies that assertion to claim that Germany and Japan had "established democracies" while Iraq and Afghanistan did not. I showed that is also false and further note that Iraq and Afghanist

By the way, Lybia had 6,378 million dollars of external debt... at the beginning of this year. Finally, the National Transitional Council is led by Mahmoud Jibril, who as far as I looked wasn't affiliated to those factions.

You sound just like a capitalist. They should be happy because we give them free stuff with only a few strings attached! All I can say is that the spontaneous revolt indicates to me that all wasn't well in Libya. Maybe those freebies weren't as generously distributed as you claim they were? Maybe Gaddifi was bad enough that bribes of free stuff weren't covering it? Maybe someone else is offering more in their local cargo cult?

UN HDI [wikipedia.org] map is one interesting data source. See that huge green blob at the top of Africa, the only one on the continent? That's Libya. For all that can be said about Gaddafi, he really did make a working welfare state, head and shoulders above all his neighbors, and in many aspects on par even with some European countries.

As for spontaneous revolt, well... it may be true, but the fact that rebels - from the get go! - included high-profile people [wsws.org] and organizations [wikipedia.org] strongly affiliated with CIA - excuse me if I find it dubious.

Even if true, that grassroots movement seems to have just as strong radical Islamist component as the liberal one. If Iran is anything to go by, once the dictator is overthrown, the groups will inevitably start to fight between themselves - and Islamists are much more likely to win due to their determination and willingness to sacrifice.

The UN HDI for Libya is biased by their very high GNI per capita (due to being one of the world's largest oil producers). But little of this actually makes it to the population (as noted by the CIA Factbook article on Libya).

Course they do, bloody obvious given the events of the last six months isn't it?

See, that's the funny part.

Back in Feb/March, all TV talking heads and newspapers were talking about the imminent collapse of Gaddafi's regime because it was supposed to be an uprising of all Libyan people. All he had left, they said, are a bunch of hired mercs. Well, and heavy artillery - but NATO air strikes were supposed to take care of that pronto.

And then what? Instead of a victorious march on the capital, we've seen six months of brutal fighting with towns shifting back and forth. Given NATO backing a

While I agree that Gadaffi must certainly have had a significant degree of support, and also that the various armed groups of rebels are currently fragmented along tribal and ethnic lines, I think that this view can be pushed to far.

To see this as simply an East vs West civil war is to ignore the very definite large-scale support the rebels have received in and around Tripoli. The TNC in Benghazi have been adamant that they fight for the freedom of all Libyans, not for secession or to settle old scores -

In 1917 or so a russian king was deposed/abdicated and a republican (small r) government sorta was going but then was quickly executed (along with the king and his entire family) by the bolshi who were better organized which then ruled for a long time.

There's a bit more to it than that. The so-called Provisional Government that came to power after the abdication of Nicholas II was republican in name only - it was not elected by the people. Furthermore, while they had a stated goal of convening a Constituent Assembly (which would then determine the future political system of the country) - hence "provisional" in the name - in practice this kept getting postponed whenever the last promised date came up, so in effect it turned into a dictatorship. Bolshevik

When we look back in the year 3000 at what caused the stagnation, decline and eventual collapse of the United States, the year the progressive income tax was instituted will be clearly recognized as the year the US turned into a farce of itself. The fact that in the more than 100 years that followed it achieved some of the greatest scientific, technological and industrial breakthroughs ever, and for entire generations had a standard of living unprecedented in all of history, clearly can count for naught aga

My guess would be they are glad to see Ghadaffi go, but nervous. The guy is an unmitigated asshole who has ruled with an iron fist and severely curtailed personal liberty, executed political dissidents, and taken most of the country's wealth for him and his family. You can bet he's not real popular, and I'm sure most people that aren't his cronies would love to see him gone.

However I'm sure they are also worried. I mean who knows what kind of government the rebels bring? Maybe things become free and open, maybe they turn out to be even worse. Also war is always worrying because innocents get hurt, no way around it. You can mind your own business, strictly not take sides, and still get killed.

My guess would be they are glad to see Ghadaffi go, but nervous. The guy is an unmitigated asshole who has ruled with an iron fist and severely curtailed personal liberty, executed political dissidents, and taken most of the country's wealth for him and his family. You can bet he's not real popular, and I'm sure most people that aren't his cronies would love to see him gone.

Well, I guess 'consumers' in Libya will soon find out how it looks like when you have to start paying bills for everything, and when 'democratic' government is not giving out subsidies anymore (but money goes to themselves and their cronies).

Mind you, I really don't like Ghadaffi, but Libya is now going to end up like Iraq.

So there was a day with an relatively large number of attacks. That's the point of making attacks like that, to get in the paper and provide a little propaganda to people who want to believe. I'm asking here for evidence that things aren't going well in Iraq. One day doesn't cut it.

Instead of one socialist state, which, while far from ideal, managed to provide livable conditions to most of its citizens, there are now three wild, impoverished areas with destroyed infrastructure and without social order, simmering in civil war.

Interesting perception there. But if there's a so-called "civil war" shouldn't there be a war first? Instead we see that the war, such as it was, ended in 2008.

Well, I guess 'consumers' in Libya will soon find out how it looks like when you have to start paying bills for everything, and when 'democratic' government is not giving out subsidies anymore (but money goes to themselves and their cronies).

So, we can put you down as synic, yes?

Damnit man, they're restarting their country with intentions toward freedom, and that's all you can come up with?!?

You can mind your own business, strictly not take sides, and still get killed.

At the signing of a charter establishing the German Peace Corps in Bonn, West Germany on June 24 1963, John F Kennedy referenced Dante's Inferno when he remarked that, "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in periods of moral crisis, maintained their neutrality." The people of Libya and especially the youth, who with neither training nor experience and at great personal risk, took up arms to liberate themselves from decades of brutal oppression deserve the highest praise for their actions.

The people of Libya and especially the youth, who with neither training nor experience and at great personal risk, took up arms to liberate themselves from decades of brutal oppression deserve the highest praise for their actions.

Revolutions are messy and bloody affairs and they sometimes make for strange bedfellows. In the case of Libya there wasn't any other viable option; four decades of Gaddafi proved that. Are some of these revolutionaries unsavory? Almost certainly, but that doesn't diminish their success. Libya is not the same as Iraq, the people in charge aren't about to hand the reigns of power to the Taliban-style Islamists; especially not after four decades of Gaddafi and his "Islamic Jamahiriya" nonsense.

Gaddafi's state, for all his Islamic rhetoric in the "Green Book" and elsewhere, was more secular than it was Islamic. Meanwhile, NATO is giving weapons to the very same people who have been fighting them a mere year ago in Afghanistan under the banner of religious fanaticism. And one simple rule of all revolutions is: whoever got the guns, is in charge. Would you bet on it that liberal opposition will end up with more guns than Islamists? and even if so, that they will be ready and willing to use them? Don

"and I'm sure most people that aren't his cronies would love to see him gone."

What I found quite telling was to see the pro-Gaddaffi rallies, they weren't particularly numerous, and those that were there often seem to be very well dressed, with an impressive amount of expensive looking jewellery on.

I have a feeling the only ones supporting Gaddaffi pretty much are the ones who, like him, are rich through exploiting the people and the country. Those who Gaddaffi has allowed to similarly exploit these resourc

The whole thing is a farce. "Rebels"? They're jihadists. Gaddafi and anti-Gaddafi forces readily kill civilians, they yell "allah hu ackbar!" when firing their weapons. Terrorists all around, including NATO. We should GTFO at once, Obama got us into another mess we shouldn't be involved in.

They are terrorists because they shout "God is Great" (one of the cries of the revolution across the Arab world, and even used by those protesting against the Mullahs in Iran)?

Really? Because I've been following the coverage on NPR, BBC, and Al Jazeera since about the time it started.

The reactions are mixed, though it seems like there are a lot more people who disliked Quadaffi. Back before Triploi was taken, a reporter who snuck away from his chaperone managed to get an interview with someone who basically said "when the rebels come, they'll all have our support." And a lot of that happened. However, there were a few pockets of die-hard Quadaffi supporters who still resisted.

What if the repressed 20% would prefer Sharia law as a constitution, complete with burqas and death penalty for adultery and apostasy - as seen in "liberated" Afghanistan? Isn't that just another kind of tyranny?

Depends what you think democracy means. I live in a constitutional republic (the US) which isn't always considered a democracy depending on the definer. Tyranny by a majority was one of the supposed evils that the elaborate and segregated structure of the government was supposed to guard against.

Do we really need to search for a tech angle just to talk about it on Slashdot?

It's pretty common for Slashdot to highlight the tech angle of world stories, because they are interesting things that get lost in other reports. It gives us a chance to talk about Libya, and see a different side of the situation. Ousama Abushagur is now a hero, at least to fellow geeks.

Exactly. If we want some armchair general's view on the battle, or a politicians view, we check CNN or BBC or even Wikinews. If we want a comedian's view, we watch Colbert. If we want a moron's view, there's Fox. If we want the tech angle, we've got/. They all start from the same core story, but each specializes in a particular set of details.

Looks who's talking AC. Me? I'm not tough, I just know something about how to fight. And to correct a mistake on your part, aside from time back in the 80s when the US dropped some ordnance on Gaddafi's tent, there's never been an attempt (at least with US military forces), serious or otherwise to kill Gaddafi.

There's a simple observation to make here. The US Chiefs of Staff don't make those sorts of decisions. President Obama does. Telling them what to do isn't relevant when Obama has decided otherwise. Do I think Obama is ineffectively fighting in Libya? Of course.

The dubious rebel claims have been inflated in the past, it's great they are controlling the infrastructure that exists but it could easily be fleeting. Gaddafi's son Khamis and a group of 10,000 well-trained troops happened to "just disappear" when the rebels got to Tripoli. I have a sneaking suspicion a terrible brand of urban warfare emerges before the internet is anywhere near reliable. Still, the article doesn't mention that the site for Libyan Telecom and Technology posted a congratulations message so

Gaddafi's son Khamis and a group of 10,000 well-trained troops happened to "just disappear" when the rebels got to Tripoli.

They were mercenaries (or at least, that's the report, which is as reliable as anything out of Libya). They were there because Gaddafi paid them, not out of some misdirected belief in a God that will reward them for brutality, or out of a cause like freedom, or love and desire to protect their families.

They are mercenaries. Money can buy a lot of things, but you will never find someone willing to sacrifice their life for a monetary reward. When things go really bad, the mercenaries leave.

"Gaddafi's son Khamis and a group of 10,000 well-trained troops happened to "just disappear" when the rebels got to Tripoli"

That's because most of them were friends, and families of the general population in Tripoli and hence supported the rebel cause, and so when the rebels arrived, it became easy to defect without fear of being shot or having reprisals against their families.

This isn't to say there aren't a lot of Gaddaffi troops left, there are, but they're mostly the handful of ultra-loyalists and merce

Oil revenue profits will be distributed equally to all citizens of Libya on a quarterly basis.

You might want to mumble vaguely about presidential term limits, checks and balances, etc, depending on what you guys find valuable. Best of luck, hope you don't find yourself under a new brutal dictator next year.

There are already accusations that energy companies are doing the same in the West [bbc.co.uk] already (massaging profits so customers don't balk when record profits are announced alongside record price rises).

I congratulate our brothers and sisters in Libya and wonder, what will be said when it happens here? Will they be called terrorists, or freedom fighters? Will our government do as old MoMo tried and do some mass slaughter to try to hang onto power, or will they slink away with their ill gotten gains like Mubarak did?

Don't say it could never happen here because I didn't think we'd be seeing tent cities and families living in cars like something out of the third world either. The bag of tricks at the Fed is c

Don't say it could never happen here because I didn't think we'd be seeing tent cities and families living in cars like something out of the third world either. The bag of tricks at the Fed is completely empty now and congress can't keep up spending forever without our rating plunging further

Hate to burst your bubble, but the poverty rate is quite low in our country, and the bar for poverty is quite a bit higher in this country the average income for the majority of the world. For example, Cuba's average income is about 8k a year, and our poverty line is about $16k per year.

Thats not to say things are perfect, but there are an incredible number of people who pay no rent or pay no taxes and whose lifestyles are partly or wholly paid for by the government.

its a little different when you aren't invaded by a superpower who has decided "its time for democracy". but make the choice and act upon it out of mutual benefit to the society that is planning on the change.

Despite the efforts of Gadhaffi to try to pit one tribe against another, this revolt still happened. There are no tribal lines in the rebellion. It's doctors, teachers, engineers, students, just a cross-section of society. Imagine that, people being sick of a murderous 40-year cleptocracy.

But no, those dumb towel-heads can't handle democracy, right? They need a brutal, oppressive strongman to keep their primitive rage in check, right?

Internationally, the "old regime" has little support. And our news took care that no reports from them would be taken at face value. If anything, it would create an air of "look, they still think they can fool us".

And I doubt that the internet is the communication means of choice for Lybia. It would probably be the only country I'd know of where you use the internet and not TV to reach the masses.

But Gadaffi was a tough guy to deal with, so oil and infrastructure companies will have much easier time by simply putting their cronies into new 'democratic' government.

I mean, I've lived in 2 such countries, I still find it amusing to see how ignorant westerners are about these issues - they still believe it's somehow all done because of people and their freedom. Hahaha.

The issue is not so much whether Gaddafi gets booted, but rather who comes in his place. Do you seriously believe that Libya will now become a secular democracy? What will happen to their quality of life (which was consistently highest on the continent)?

Contrary to popular opinion, people can get fucked just as well in a democracy. Even worse, an unstable democracy can easily give way to an even more brutal dictatorship - Nazis enjoyed broad electoral support, and Afghanis approved the constitution that co

The issue is not so much whether Gaddafi gets booted, but rather who comes in his place. Do you seriously believe that Libya will now become a secular democracy? What will happen to their quality of life (which was consistently highest on the continent)?

I don't care whether Libya becomes a democracy or not. I'm interested more in strengthening the precedent of knocking over dictators for any pretext whatsoever. The less secure that job becomes, the easier it'll be to transition these governments to more democratic ones.

Contrary to popular opinion, people can get fucked just as well in a democracy.

Then you should be able to come up with evidence to support your claim. Note that I read what you wrote first. Germany wasn't a democracy when Hitler began fucking people over and the end of that democracy was obvious for quite some time. As

Besides a wholesale adoption of Sharia isn't happening in Afghanistan.

Their constitution literally says that the whole of Sharia is the supreme law ("In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam") above everything else,

That is the point. They have to remove the trappings of democracy first.

Better yet, never even have them. You can always slap a sticker saying "democracy" on whatever turd there is. All that matters is that the big boys accept it at face value - the same thing can be officially recognized as a sham, as in China or Iran, and then pretended to be meaningful, as in Afghanistan.

I guess Afghanistan will have to pick up a new constitution down the road then. Still better than a non-democracy.

Personally - as an atheist - I'd much prefer a dictatorship that leaves my personal beliefs alone to a democracy that makes them a capital crime. I think I'm not alone in that.

The German military had started planning a new total war from the 20s. Read up on the history of Heinz Guderian. As a planner for the Weimar Republic military, developed a number of battle tactics for the German military (that is, blitzkreig and combined arms) that required vast numbers of troops (far more than the puny 100,000 that Germany was allowed to have by treaty) and used weapons and troops in ways that no potential enemy could do or was planning to do. Within ten years, Hitler was in charge buildin

It was not a matter of "if", but "who" and "when" for the dissolution of the Weimar Republic and its replacement by an authoritarian government. Hitler just happened to be the one who ended up on top.

That is a far-fetched assertion. Just because there are elements plotting to overthrow a regime doesn't make said overthrow inevitable.

Second, Hitler's abuses didn't really start until he had dissolved the Republic. That happened rather quickly once he became Chancellor...

And of course, the timeline of Hitler's rise to power shows that he acted cautiously until the debris of the Republic was swept away.

History doesn't agree with you.

(1) Hitler putshed in Bavaria in 1923 and was convicted to 5 years in prison for it. (He was released after 9 months for "good behavior.") It was in prison where he wrote his seminal work in which he was pretty open about his hatred for any democratic regime and his plan to overthrow it using "democratic" means.

(3) The final nail in the coffin of the Weimar republic was the Enabling Act of 1933. By that time the communist opposition (who got 12% in the election before it) was outlawed and terrorized. The social democrats received a good beating as well.

The real action didn't start till 1934. Stuff like Night of the Long Knives.

(4) Before the "dissolution" of the Weimar republic (which legally never happened), the Prussian state government was overthrown and Prussia was directly administered by the Reich. That wasn't done by Hitler, but it played directly into his hands, because the Prussia would have been in a strong position to defy Hitler.

Yep. Mighty convenient. You might want to look at who did that and how they dealt with Hitler afterwards. I actually see this as confirmation of my original claim. It's one thing

The electoral support of the Nazis was waning in 1933 and indeed they gained power by terrorizing the opposition. Hitler convinced Hindenburg to outlaw the communist party after blaming the Reichstag fire on them. Their deputies were subsequently arrested in mass. The conservatives somehow believed they could hold Hitler in check and abdicated their parliamentary responsibilities. Only the social democrats stood up to him to the bitter end.

In Libya, the most oil-rich country in Africa, one of the world's largest oil producers, has the highest GDP to population ratio in Africa, but little of the money actually makes it down to the general population. It's a cleptocracy.

Here, how about this. Picture we've got a bunch of people in other countries telling you, "Oh, Americans are too irresponsible or stupid to handle democracy. America should just have a strongman who brutalizes and robs from his people for decades." What would you think of a

Admittedly a lot of it served to line up the pockets of Gaddafi's family, no doubt about that. But I wouldn't call the remainder little, by any measure. They really did have excellent healthcare and education.

Heck, remember that story [nytimes.com] about Libyan students in US in danger of being kicked out because Libyan government accounts were frozen, and it's what paid the tuition fees for all these guys (and also their living expenses)? How much does it cost to study in US for a foreigner, again? Especially ironic con

Picture we've got a bunch of people in other countries telling you, "Oh, Americans are too irresponsible or stupid to handle democracy. America should just have a strongman who brutalizes and robs from his people for decades." What would you think of a person who thought that of you?

If I was a Rebublicon, I'd say "You mean like Obama?"

If I was a Dumbocrat, I'd say "You mean like Bush?"

If I was from any other party it wouldn't matter, nobody would be listening anyway.

So, you propose we actively keep the people of Libya living in misery ("The ideal situation here is for this civil war to last as long as it can, and not end, so that by the time it's done, there is nothing left in Libya that's of use to anyone... Only dog we have is the fight itself. Feed that dog.") because if they ever have any power, they'll turn it against us because they hate us. Now why would they ever have cause to be angry at us?

Do you imagine that, even if so motivated, they could have gotten ideological censorship up and running so quickly?

Long-run, the ISP and the censor have the upper hand, because they touch every packet; but it takes time, money, and expertise to get to the point where you can go from shoving packets down the line as fast as you can and start burning system resources on the task of making service work in some ideologically convenient way...

(More broadly, given that the Libyan government spent some decades showing no intention of going anywhere, and maintaining a fairly tight grip, there is probably a very long list of people whose now-inconvenient history of cooperation with the outgoing regime in no secret at all. If the new chaps are still unsatisfied after they've worked through that backlog, the actual witch-hunting might begin; but there are still loads of active armed remnants and former public officials to deal with first...)